Socialism is the ideal way to go. Change my Mind - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15005337
SolarCross wrote:Tents are easily taken down and moved. They do however block right of way while they are up. It is a grey area but the longer the tents remain there the more private they become.


The first sentence is correct. The second one is often not correct, and the third one is completely wrong.

For someone who makes so many claims about private property, you seem to know little about property laws in the common law system.

The only common I care about is the one next to my house. I am part of the local community so I would have a say on what uses that land is put to same as the local farmers. Personally I would not object to a temporary camp providing the campers cleaned up after themselves. The local farmers might be more demanding because they keep sheep and cows on the common. I wouldn't even worry about a caravan being sited there because the land is extremely hilly and not suitable at all for caravans due to the lack flat gradients.


So is that a yes or a no?

The reality is everyone wants to live on private property nobody (including yourself and @Truth To Power) wants to live on common land because:
1. You can't build there without making it private land.


What if we lived in a society where this concept of private property in land was radically different or did not exist?

2. People like to live in houses more than they like living out in the open.


This is not relevant.
#15005414
Pants-of-dog wrote:The first sentence is correct. The second one is often not correct, and the third one is completely wrong.

For someone who makes so many claims about private property, you seem to know little about property laws in the common law system.

I'm not the one who thinks one can build on common land without making it private by the very act of enclosing it in walls.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So is that a yes or a no?

It is what it is, learn to read.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What if we lived in a society where this concept of private property in land was radically different or did not exist?

A society where retards run the mental asylum. No thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:whatever

Yes it is.

-------

@SSDR

Okay I don't know what horrible parents you had but it isn't really relevant to the question of whether or not it is acceptable to build on common land. For the record I have nothing against common land I am against the ignorant posturing of ideologists who use it as a talking point without knowing anything about it.
#15005448
SolarCross wrote:I'm not the one who thinks one can build on common land without making it private by the very act of enclosing it in walls.


Nor am I. You assumed I said all of this because you believe that people can only live in houses, and common land becomes private when you build a house. Neither of these are universally true.

It is what it is, learn to read.


Okay, you are not willing to engage in debate.

A society where retards run the mental asylum. No thanks.


No. A society where people lived in nomadic structures and used communally owned land to temporarily set up these structures would be one where the idea of private property in terms of land was radically different from the one you believe in.

Yes it is.


Not for my discussion on paradigms.
#15005511
Pants-of-dog wrote:Nor am I. You assumed I said all of this because you believe that people can only live in houses, and common land becomes private when you build a house. Neither of these are universally true.

We were talking about the commons of England and the myths spread about it by ideological foreigners. The commons is open land but if you build on then it is closed or private land. Nobody wants sheep to have legal right of way through their livingrooms or random hobos foraging for valuables in their bedrooms. That is why houses have walls and locked doors to keep out both sheep and burglars. Anything with walls and doors is an ENCLOSURE because it ENCLOSES (literally "makes closed") a space preventing access by the commons.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay, you are not willing to engage in debate.

There is no debate just me patiently trying to educate a pair of ignorant lunatics.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. A society where people lived in nomadic structures and used communally owned land to temporarily set up these structures would be one where the idea of private property in terms of land was radically different from the one you believe in.

We have nomads today they are called gypsies, traveler folk, or pikies in my country. They understand the idea of private property in land quite well they just have less use for it because they move about. Their caravans are the private property they care about.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Not for my discussion on paradigms.

There is no paradigm where people make a principled demand to sleep with the sheep under an open sky. It is all in your flaky imagination.
Last edited by SolarCross on 18 May 2019 15:16, edited 1 time in total.
#15005539
@SolarCross,

"Okay I don't know what horrible parents you had but it isn't really relevant to the question of whether or not it is acceptable to build on common land. For the record I have nothing against common land I am against the ignorant posturing of ideologists who use it as a talking point without knowing anything about it."

- So you believe that if one refuses a forced marriage, they should be homeless?
#15005540
SSDR wrote:
"Okay I don't know what horrible parents you had but it isn't really relevant to the question of whether or not it is acceptable to build on common land. For the record I have nothing against common land I am against the ignorant posturing of ideologists who use it as a talking point without knowing anything about it."

- So you believe that if one refuses a forced marriage, they should be homeless?

No, why would I? And what does that have to do with anything anyway? :?:
#15005556
SolarCross wrote:We were talking about the commons of England .....


Maybe you were. I was talking about more universal things.

We have nomads today they are called gypsies, traveler folk, or pikies in my country. They understand the idea of private property in land quite well they just have less use for it because they move about. Their caravans are the private property they care about.


Yes, and this is a good example of how people can live on common land without building permanent enclosures or making the land private.

There is no paradigm where people make a principled demand to sleep with the sheep under an open sky.


Since I never claimed that, this is a strawman.

All this to say that your ideas about common land and private property are very ethnocentric.
#15005564
Pants-of-dog wrote:Maybe you were. I was talking about more universal things.

No you were talking about your own poorly expressed personal ideology which no one else shares at all. There is nothing universal about it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and this is a good example of how people can live on common land without building permanent enclosures or making the land private.

Well funnily enough in the UK those that live around common land (and therefore those that have the most say over what the land is used for) generally bitterly resent pikies camping out on that common land. This is because pikies have a bad reputation for thievery and violence and when they do leave they usually leave the land in a terrible state. What was once a green and pleasant land looks like landfill site after. Because of this they try to buy land to camp on so that they will have an actual right to camp there. Even gypos know the value of private property even if they don't respect other's property.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I never claimed that, this is a strawman.

All this to say that your ideas about common land and private property are very ethnocentric.

If I went to China or India would the concepts be so very different? Some concepts are necessary concepts.
#15005569
SolarCross wrote:Well funnily enough in the UK those that live around common land (and therefore those that have the most say over what the land is used for) generally bitterly resent pikies camping out on that common land. This is because pikies have a bad reputation for thievery and violence and when they do leave they usually leave the land in a terrible state. What was once a green and pleasant land looks like landfill site after. Because of this they try to buy land to camp on so that they will have an actual right to camp there. Even gypos know the value of private property even if they don't respect other's property.


I was not talking about this either.

But it is interesting how badly Anglos treat anyone who does not agree with their land paradigm.

If I went to China or India would the concepts be so very different? Some concepts are necessary concepts.


Why are these necessary concepts?
#15005572
Pants-of-dog wrote:I was not talking about this either.

But it is interesting how badly Anglos treat anyone who does not agree with their land paradigm.

That is not why "anglos" resent pikies. "Anglos" resent pikies the same way the hen resents the fox.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why are these necessary concepts?

Because we don't live in the wilderness anymore. We put walls around spaces and designate then for particular uses under the authority of particular people. I do believe the Chinese and Indians do that too. They will have different words for it that is all.
Last edited by SolarCross on 18 May 2019 16:23, edited 1 time in total.
#15005575
SolarCross wrote:That is not why "anglos" resent pikies.


It is the common theme in the anti-Traveller sentiment, and your hatred of non-capitalists, and British imperialism.

Because we don't live in the wilderness anymore. We put walls around spaces and designate then for particular uses under the authority of particular people. I do believe the Chinese and Indians do that too. They will have different words for it that is all.


This does not make it necessary. All it means is that you cannot imagine a way of doing it other than the one you have always lived with.
#15005576
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is the common theme in the anti-Traveller sentiment, and your hatred of non-capitalists, and British imperialism.

No it isn't, the common theme is the mess they make and the thieving they do. Your theme is racism against "anglos". I have a friend from Romania and I was struck by how his attitudes towards pikies were basically identical to "anglos". They have a lot of gypsies there but not everyone is a gypsy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not make it necessary. All it means is that you cannot imagine a way of doing it other than the one you have always lived with.

Why?
#15005577
SolarCross wrote:No it isn't, the common theme is the mess they make and the thieving they do.


I doubt travellers are responsible for the genocide committed by the British Empire, or your emotional issues with Marxists.

Why?


Yes, exactly. Why are they necessary?
#15005584
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt travellers are responsible for the genocide committed by the British Empire, or your emotional issues with Marxists

That is not what I said. Do you understand that it isn't only "anglos" that resent thefts made against them?

Pants-of-dog wrote:whatever

You made the claim that they are not necessary but you can't explain why. Why are they not necessary? You actually have no idea at all, just admit it.
#15005588
SolarCross wrote:That is not what I said. Do you understand that it isn't only anglos that resent thefts made against them?


Yes, that is what you said. But I understand that you did not mean to do so.

My point was that the British Empire spread Anglosphere concepts of how land should be owned, and these concepts seem natural and objective and inevitable because of their ubiquitous nature.

However, they are not.

You made the claim that they are not necessary but you can't explain why. Why are they not necessary? You actually have no idea at all, just admit it.


Actually, you made the claim they were necessary.

But if you wish, I will point out historical examples of this paradigm not existing. Since I am on the Canadian prairie, I will use the Cree and other Plains nations.

First of all, land was communally owned. It belonged to the nation. And while certain portions were designated for certain uses at certain times, no individual had sole access to a portion of land at all times. Even if you had sole right to a certain resource in one area (like a trapline), the land could still be used by (for example) a hunter following game across that area.

So no, these ideas of building permanent homes on privately owned land are not necessary.
#15005591
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, that is what you said. But I understand that you did not mean to do so.

My point was that the British Empire spread Anglosphere concepts of how land should be owned, and these concepts seem natural and objective and inevitable because of their ubiquitous nature.

However, they are not.

The British Empire didn't even get going properly until 16th century at the earliest. The Portuguese and Spanish were out the gate earlier. Private property in land certainly pre-exists the Roman Empire and actually is a feature of every civilisation with a significant sedentary population. The first city dwelling civilisation is reckoned to be Sumer in what is now Iraq which dates back to 4500 BC. Agriculture is reckoned to have started something like 12000 years ago. That is the origin of private property in land. It is ubiquitous because of that. It is a rather absurd to flatter the British for inventing something that has been around since even before written history began. We brits invented a lot of stuff but private property in land was not one of them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, you made the claim they were necessary.

But if you wish, I will point out historical examples of this paradigm not existing. Since I am on the Canadian prairie, I will use the Cree and other Plains nations.

First of all, land was communally owned. It belonged to the nation. And while certain portions were designated for certain uses at certain times, no individual had sole access to a portion of land at all times. Even if you had sole right to a certain resource in one area (like a trapline), the land could still be used by (for example) a hunter following game across that area.

So no, these ideas of building permanent homes on privately owned land are not necessary.

Of course nomads do things differently. The concepts are necessary for sedentary people, people who build permanent installations. Nomads do have private property though they don't necessarily treat land that way given they move about. I am not really hostile to nomads as you probably imagine I just don't hate sedentary folk the way you do. My grandfather was a Irish tinker, a gypsy, it is in my blood even. I often fantasise about roaming about the world as a sea gypsy on my own boat.
#15005593
SolarCross wrote:The British Empire didn't even get going properly until 16th century at the earliest. The Portuguese and Spanish were out the gate earlier. Private property in land certainly pre-exists the Roman Empire and actually is a feature of every civilisation with a significant sedentary population. The first city dwelling civilisation is reckoned to be Sumer in what is now Iraq which dates back to 4500 BC. Agriculture is reckoned to have started something like 12000 years ago. That is origin of private property in land. It is ubiquitous because of that. It is a rather absurd to flatter the British for inventing something that has been around since even before written history began. We brits invented a lot of stuff but private property in land was not one of them.


I never claimed you guys invented it. Like most British things, you guys did not invent it but instead incorporated it into your culture ad then spread it to the rest of the globe.

If you are now claiming that all societies other than hunter gatherer societies all share these Anglo ideas of privately owned land and common land, please provide evidence for this claim.

Of course nomads do things differently. The concepts are necessary for sedentary people, people who build permanent installations. Nomad's do have private property though they don't necessarily treat land that way given they move about.


Yes, we agree that these concepts of yours are not universally necessary.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 21
Ukrainegate

Dr. Fiona Hill was making reference to the Repu[…]

Or he can retire now, give Gantz the Prime Minist[…]

Syrian war thread

Was this just news to you? Israel has bombed Syr[…]

Israelis nervous about BDS

Why do you think it's fantastic that Israel's the[…]